Gujarat High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S Shree Rama Multitech Ltd on 14 July, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 279 of 2024
With
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 323 of 2024
==========================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3
Versus
M/S SHREE RAMA MULTITECH LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar for the respondent.
2. Issue involved in both the Tax Appeals is identical and therefore, they have been Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:49:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Tax Appeal No.279/2024 under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short "the Act") is arising out of ITA No.1500/AHD/2019 for Assessment Year 2012- 2013, whereas Tax Appeal No.323/2024 is arising out of ITA No.1501/AHD/2019 for Assessment Year 2013-2014.
4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad "C" Bench, Ahmedabad (For short "the Tribunal") by common judgment and order dated 8.11.2023 disposed of the appeals filed by the Revenue for both the assessment years.
5. In Tax Appeal No.279/2024, following Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:49:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined substantial question of law is proposed by the Revenue:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 25,18,441/- made by AO u/s 24 of the IT Act?"
6. In Tax Appeal No.323/2024, following substantial question of law is proposed by the Revenue:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 22,91,555/- made by AO u/s 24 of the IT Act?"
7. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under section 24 of the Act holding that the respondent assessee had rented out its business unit located at Pondicherry and offered income under the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:49:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined head of income "Income from House Property". The Assessing Officer considered the income generated from the business unit to be income under the head "Business & Profession" and disallowed the deduction towards municipal tax and standard deduction under section 24(1) of the Act though the respondent assessee contended before the Assessing officer that similar addition made for Assessment year 2011-2012 was deleted by CIT(Appeals) in the First Appeal.
8. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who allowed the appeal following earlier year's decision for Assessment Year 2011-2012 holding that the Act does not differentiate between the factory building Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:49:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined or in other building for the purpose of computation of income under the head "Income from House Property". As long as it is a factory building and the land appurtenant thereto have been let out, the same is covered under the house property as referred to in section 22 of the Act.
9. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The respondent assessee contended that order of CIT(Appeals) was also confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore, confirmed and upheld the order passed by CIT(Appeals).
10. Thus there are concurrent findings of fact that the respondent assessee let out the factory building on rent which is Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:49:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/279/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined offered to tax as "Income from House Property". We are therefore, of the opinion that Tribunal has not committed any error and no substantial question of law arises from the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.
11. Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:49:09 IST 2025